DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendment filed on May 4, 2026. Claims 1-2, 10-11, 14, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-8,10-11 and 14-23 are pending and will be considered for examination.
3. In light of applicant’s amendments to the title submitted on 5/04/2026, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginetti et al. (US 2013/0290834 A1) in view of Fieldman, Ethan (US 10126927 B1)
As in Claim 1, Ginetti teaches a content updating method, comprising:
in response to an editing operation for first target content of a first document, editing the first target content of the first document (see at least FIGS. 4-8, pars. 36-51, for example, the system receives an editing operation for elements of a document A (e.g., document A 451.1 as an active document in a window 420 of FIG. 4 or document A 851.1 in window 820 of FIG. 8), wherein editing operation includes adding, deleting, moving, or otherwise modifying elements of the active document); and
executing processing, corresponding to the editing operation, on second target content in a second document according to the editing operation, wherein the first target content and the second target content have a reference relationship (see at least FIGS. 4-8, pars. 36-51, based on the editing operation, the edits are synchronized and displayed in other documents (e.g., background documents B 455.1 of FIG. 4 or document B 855.1 of FIG. 8), the documents being connected by micro-bumps).
Ginetti does not appear to explicitly teach that wherein the executing the processing, corresponding to the editing operation, on the second target content in the second document according to the editing operation comprises: in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for the first target content, keeping a display state of the second target content in the second document unchanged.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Fieldman teaches that wherein the executing the processing, corresponding to the editing operation, on the second target content in the second document according to the editing operation comprises: in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for the first target content, keeping a display state of the second target content in the second document unchanged (col. 47, line 40-col. 48, line 34; col. 57, line 15 – col. 58, line 11; col. 54, line 64 col. 64, line 40, an object (e.g., photo) can be moved by simply dragging to the new desired location without any visual changes. Fieldman describes the whiteboard (OCD Room/Tutorial Room GUI) that is displayed to each participant and the system can automatically synchronize participant navigation so that all participants are “on the same page”, and are viewing the same thing).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for synchronizing the connected documents based on the edit on the document, as taught by Ginetti, and to drag the item to the new position in the synchronized/collaborative environment, as taught by Fieldman. The motivation is to enable multiple participants to collaboratively interact with shared whiteboard content, and allow intuitive drag-based operation without disrupting collaboration,
As in Claim 2, Ginetti-Fieldman teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Ginetti-Fieldman further teaches that wherein the executing the processing, corresponding to the editing operation, on the second target content in the second document according to the editing operation further comprises:
in response to the editing operation being another operation than the drag operation for the first target content, editing the second target content in the second document according to the editing operation (Ginetti, see FIGS. 4-8, pars. 36-51, for example, in FIG. 8 and par. 50, the element can be added, deleted, moved, or otherwise changed in document A 851.1 in window 1).
As in Claim 3, Ginetti-Fieldman teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Ginetti-Fieldman further teaches that the first target content comprises at least two content blocks (Ginetti, see FIGS. 10 and 12, pars. 54, 60, 64-65, elements 1012.1-1012.N of FIG. 10 or 1211.1-1211.N of FIG. 8); and the editing the second target content in the second document according to the editing operation comprises (Ginetti, pars. 54, 60, 64-65; further see pars. 36-51):
in response to the editing operation being a position exchange operation for first and second content blocks in the first target content, performing position exchange on the corresponding first and second content blocks in the second target content; or
in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for a third content block in the first target content, deleting the corresponding third content block in the second target content; or
in response to the editing operation being to add a sixth content block between fourth and fifth content blocks in the first target content, adding the sixth content block between the corresponding fourth and fifth content blocks in the second target content; or
in response to the editing operation being a modification operation for the first target content, modifying corresponding content in the second target content (Ginetti, pars. 36-37, 65, and 69, alignment adjustments or other edits to the elements (e.g., die)); or
in response to the editing operation being a deletion operation for the first target content, deleting the second target content (Ginetti, pars. 36-51, for example, in FIG. 8 and par. 50, the element can be added, deleted, moved, or otherwise changed in document A 851.1 in window 1).
As in Claim 5, Ginetti-Fieldman teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Ginetti-Fieldman teaches that wherein the first target content comprises at least two content blocks (Ginetti, see FIGS. 10 and 12, pars. 54, 60, 64-65, elements 1012.1-1012.N of FIG. 10 or 1211.1-1211.N of FIG. 8; see rejection for claim 3); and the editing the first target content of the first document comprises (Ginetti, pars. 54, 60, 64-65; further see pars. 36-51):
in response to the editing operation being a position exchange operation for first and second content blocks in the first target content, performing position exchange on the corresponding first and second content blocks in the first target content; or
in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for a third content block in the first target content, dragging the third content block in the first document from a first position to a second position; or
in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for the first target content, dragging the first target content in the first document from a third position to a fourth position; or
in response to the editing operation being to add a sixth content block between fourth and fifth content blocks in the first target content, adding the sixth content block between the corresponding fourth and fifth content blocks in the first target content; or
in response to the editing operation being a modification operation for the first target content, modifying corresponding content of the first target content (Ginetti, pars. 36-37, 65, and 69, alignment adjustments or other edits to the elements (e.g., die)); or
in response to the editing operation being a deletion operation for the first target content, deleting the first target content (Ginetti, FIG. 8 and par. 50, the element can be added, deleted, moved, or otherwise changed in document A 851.1 in window 1).
As in Claim 6, Ginetti-Fieldman teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Ginetti-Fieldman further teaches establishing, in the second document, the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content in the first document (Ginetti, pars. 34, 36, 41, 53, 56, 64, 67, every element and object in the active document, as well as the corresponding connected elements in the background document, are linked by micro-bumps).
As in Claim 7, Ginetti-Fieldman teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Ginetti-Fieldman further teaches that the first target content comprises at least two content blocks, and the establishing, in the second document, the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content in the first document comprises (Ginetti, FIGS. 10 and 12, pars. 54, 60, 64-65):
combining the corresponding at least two content blocks in the second target content into a whole content block, and establishing a reference relationship between the whole content block and the first target content (Ginetti, FIGS. 10 and 12, pars. 54, 60, 64-65).
Claims 10 and 11 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 14 and 21 are substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 15 and 22 are substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 4, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginetti et al. (US 2013/0290834 A1) in view of Fieldman, Ethan (US 10126927 B1) and further in view of Kleppner et al. (US 2013/0212250 A1).
As in Claim 4, Ginetti-Fieldman teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Ginetti-Fieldman does not teach that if the first target content references the second target content, and a user performing the editing operation has an editing permission for the first document, the method further comprises: acquiring an editing permission of the user for the second document; and if the user has the editing permission for the second document, executing the editing the first target content of the first document.
However, in the same field of the invention, Kleppner teaches that if the first target content references the second target content, and a user performing the editing operation has an editing permission for the first document, the method further comprises: acquiring an editing permission of the user for the second document (pars. 40, 42, 54, 90-91, 106, the document collaboration system 100 enforces permission of edits by controlling which user can access or modify electronic documents 110/150. Based on user permission and access control, edits made to a document can be synchronized across all collaborators); and
if the user has the editing permission for the second document, executing the editing the first target content of the first document (pars. 40, 42, 54, 90-91, 106, based on user permission and access control, edits made to a document can be synchronized across all collaborators).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for synchronizing the connected documents based on the edit on the document, as taught by Ginetti, in view of Fieldman’s teachings, and to synchronize the respective documents in the collaboration based on the edits on the document with the permission, as taught by Kleppner. The motivation is to ensure secure and controlled editing while keeping all collaborator’s views of a document consistent in real time.
Claims 16 and 23 are substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
6. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginetti et al. (US 2013/0290834 A1) in view of Fieldman, Ethan (US 10126927 B1) in view of Isidore, Eustace P. (US 2011/0055688 A1) and further in view of Reddy et al. (US 11233852 B1).
As in Claim 8, Ginetti-Fieldman teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Ginetti-Fieldman further teaches that wherein the establishing, in the second document, the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content in the first document comprises (Ginetti, pars. 54, 60, 64-65; further see pars. 36-51):
Ginetti-Fieldman does not appear to explicitly teach: in response to a copy operation for the first target content in the first document, copying the first target content; in response to a paste operation in the second document, pasting the first target content to the second document to generate the second target content, and displaying a reference control; and in response to a triggering operation for the reference control, establishing the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content.
However, in the same field of the invention, Isidore teaches: in response to a copy operation for the first target content in the first document, copying the first target content (pars. 6-9, 19-20, 53, the user may select content to be copied or moved in a document);
in response to a paste operation in the second document, pasting the first target content to the second document to generate the second target content (pars. 6-9, 19-20, 53, the copied content can be moved or inserted across multiple documents).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for synchronizing the connected documents based on the edit on the document, as taught by Ginetti, in view of Fieldman’s teachings, and to copy the content from one document and past into other document, as taught by Isidore. The motivation is to speed up editing, and allow precise, efficient placement of content across one or multiple documents.
Ginetti-Fieldman and sidore do not teach displaying a reference control; and in response to a triggering operation for the reference control, establishing the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content.
However, in the same field of the invention, Reddy teaches displaying a reference control (FIGS. 3A-3C, col. 17, lines 11-35, sync buttons 306 and 308); and
in response to a triggering operation for the reference control, establishing the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content (FIGS. 3A-3C, col. 16, line 63 to col. 17, line 44, multiple users can work with local copies of the same content, where each user’s local copy can be independently viewed and edited. With the sync buttons, their local copy is updated to match the current state of the presenting user’s local copy, including changes in content.; further see col. 7, lines 15-34, col. 11, lines 40-56, col. 11, line 64 to col. 12, lines 60, col. 14, line 57 to col. 15, line 34 ).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for synchronizing the connected documents based on the edit on the document, as taught by Ginetti, in view of Fieldman’s and Isidore’s teachings, and to provide the sync buttons to update or synchronize local copies of users, as taught by Reddy. The motivation is to ensure all users can quickly align their views without affecting the ongoing edits.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1-8,10-11 and 14-23 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights